Re: RE: Men's Rights?
Tracy, thanks for all your input on your other posts. While I agree with some of what you are saying, you are right that I do view things differently and I wont change my mind about home births. Here is a true case of midwifery from somewhere around here in the past few years.
Suzy the midwife, was attending her patient (who she had assessed as being in the low risk group) during her home birth.
The first FIFTY THREE hours of labour were uneventful and Suzy was constantly reassuring her patient.
However, possibly because Suzy had a party on the third day to go to, or possibly because she saw a bit of blood, or possibly because the damn baby just wasnt coming out, Suzy finally had her patient taken to hospital. Where, despite the immediate C section and attention of all the specialists who immediately noted the marked deceleration tracings, the baby did very very poorly and finally died.
I quote this true story to make a few points:
1. You cannot use the fact that there are bad doctors and bad hospitals as a reason for home birth. Just as there are disasters in hospitals with negligent doctors, there are also disasters with negligent midwifes. A woman who chooses a midwife may have no more knowledge about her abilities than she does a doctor. A woman making a decision on home birth cannot assume that the only negligence will occur in hospital.
2. With regard to statistics, and this is only one of several cases I can quote from the past few years in Canada, the above case is listed as a HOSPITAL death because the patient was in HOSPITAL. It is not listed as a home birth death, because the baby did not die at home. But clearly, the midwife delivering at HOME caused the bad outcome. During home birth, about 30-40% of cases get subsequently transferred to hospital. Mortality and morbidity statistics then get confused as the baby (and mother) become a hospital statistic, and are not listed as a bad outcome of a home birth.
3. You are correct that England has a more extensive, more experienced and better supplied midwifery program. So does Australia. One of my friends is a midwife on the flying doctor service. But in both of these countries, the service provides for very isolated areas that do not have any hospitals in the vicinity.
In Canada, one has to accept that isolated areas such as the far North do have limits on medical service. Women in these areas do have to make a choice of going sometimes hundreds of miles away from home to have a baby or really risking no available backup in an emergency. My point is that Canada should be funding all hospitals to develop more and better birthing units. Women should not be put off going to a hospital setting that is in their own town, just because they fear the archaic mode of delivery. Hospitals dont deliver that way anymore, at least none that I know of.
4. Women should also consider the fact that many women have to transfer to a hospital in the middle of their home birth. Boy, I bet that is comfortable. Wouldn't they rather just be able to stay put in their birthing unit room than transferred in a car or ambulance? Also, women should be aware that even in a normal delivery a home birth may become horrific. My friend chose home birth with the kids around. When finally my friend screamed that she needed an epidural, the midwife informed her it was too late for one and had no other pain relief. So the fun family home birth turned into a mad screaming disaster which is well imprinted on the siblings minds!!!!
5. Who got sued in the 53 hour labour home birth disaster above??? Why, the obstetrician and anaesthetist, and hospital staff. The midwife wasnt even named, and in fact continued to be thanked and protected by the patient. So even if you examine law suits arising from bad births, the relationship to home birth can be obscured.
tracy said:
Tracy, thanks for all your input on your other posts. While I agree with some of what you are saying, you are right that I do view things differently and I wont change my mind about home births. Here is a true case of midwifery from somewhere around here in the past few years.
Suzy the midwife, was attending her patient (who she had assessed as being in the low risk group) during her home birth.
The first FIFTY THREE hours of labour were uneventful and Suzy was constantly reassuring her patient.
However, possibly because Suzy had a party on the third day to go to, or possibly because she saw a bit of blood, or possibly because the damn baby just wasnt coming out, Suzy finally had her patient taken to hospital. Where, despite the immediate C section and attention of all the specialists who immediately noted the marked deceleration tracings, the baby did very very poorly and finally died.
I quote this true story to make a few points:
1. You cannot use the fact that there are bad doctors and bad hospitals as a reason for home birth. Just as there are disasters in hospitals with negligent doctors, there are also disasters with negligent midwifes. A woman who chooses a midwife may have no more knowledge about her abilities than she does a doctor. A woman making a decision on home birth cannot assume that the only negligence will occur in hospital.
2. With regard to statistics, and this is only one of several cases I can quote from the past few years in Canada, the above case is listed as a HOSPITAL death because the patient was in HOSPITAL. It is not listed as a home birth death, because the baby did not die at home. But clearly, the midwife delivering at HOME caused the bad outcome. During home birth, about 30-40% of cases get subsequently transferred to hospital. Mortality and morbidity statistics then get confused as the baby (and mother) become a hospital statistic, and are not listed as a bad outcome of a home birth.
3. You are correct that England has a more extensive, more experienced and better supplied midwifery program. So does Australia. One of my friends is a midwife on the flying doctor service. But in both of these countries, the service provides for very isolated areas that do not have any hospitals in the vicinity.
In Canada, one has to accept that isolated areas such as the far North do have limits on medical service. Women in these areas do have to make a choice of going sometimes hundreds of miles away from home to have a baby or really risking no available backup in an emergency. My point is that Canada should be funding all hospitals to develop more and better birthing units. Women should not be put off going to a hospital setting that is in their own town, just because they fear the archaic mode of delivery. Hospitals dont deliver that way anymore, at least none that I know of.
4. Women should also consider the fact that many women have to transfer to a hospital in the middle of their home birth. Boy, I bet that is comfortable. Wouldn't they rather just be able to stay put in their birthing unit room than transferred in a car or ambulance? Also, women should be aware that even in a normal delivery a home birth may become horrific. My friend chose home birth with the kids around. When finally my friend screamed that she needed an epidural, the midwife informed her it was too late for one and had no other pain relief. So the fun family home birth turned into a mad screaming disaster which is well imprinted on the siblings minds!!!!
5. Who got sued in the 53 hour labour home birth disaster above??? Why, the obstetrician and anaesthetist, and hospital staff. The midwife wasnt even named, and in fact continued to be thanked and protected by the patient. So even if you examine law suits arising from bad births, the relationship to home birth can be obscured.
